rollback

Hello @SHB2000,

I primarily work through WikiMonitor, where I occasionally assist with identifying issues such as spam link additions, unexplained content removals, and suspicious date changes across multiple wikis. However, I would not describe myself as being highly active in counter-vandalism work, nor do I perform a large number of reverts.
That said, I sometimes encounter situations where a revert is necessary, and on several wikis AbuseFilters prevent me from completing the revert. Because of this, I was wondering whether my current level of cross-wiki activity would be sufficient to request the Global rollback permission. My Regards-- Gerges ^(Talk) 15:58, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

Hmm, good question – I'd say if you usually have 150–200 reverts outside your home project that's a good threshold but I forgot where the tool is (I think it was from @DreamRimmer:). //shb (t • c) 23:16, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

Hi @SHB2000, I believe I have performed more than 200 global rollbacks outside my home project in the past, although that was some time ago since I have not been very active recently.-- Gerges ^(Talk) 13:46, 25 June 2026 (UTC)

@SHB2000, I added request on Steward requests/Global permissions#Global rollback for Gerges.-- Gerges ^(Talk) 18:38, 25 June 2026 (UTC)

sure thing :) //shb (t • c) 02:00, 26 June 2026 (UTC)

Reply

Hi, I'm HtialilwW. I admit I used multiple accounts for Wikivoyage to translate into French and Pashto and whatnot. But when you say that Te Reo Ahitereria or something like that was my first account, I got confused. That account was never mine, my first one was HtialilwW. I only joined in 2024, and, I had never even used Wikipedia back when Te Reo Ahitereria made his account. I request a check, or something similar. Have a good day - HtialilwW ThatEquatorialGuineaEditor (alt) (talk) 09:43, 24 June 2026 (UTC)

Well, Special:CentralAuth/HtialilwW is also locked so does it really matter either way? //shb (t • c) 10:04, 24 June 2026 (UTC)

Request for review of the deletion and protection of “Noble Pillar Capital”

Hello SHB2000, I am contacting you regarding the deletion and creation protection of the page “Noble Pillar Capital” on Minangkabau Wikipedia. I understand that the previous versions did not meet the project’s language and content requirements, and that repeatedly recreating the page caused it to be treated as persistent spam. I will not recreate the page under another title or use another account to bypass the protection. I would also like to clarify that I have no employment, financial, contractual, or personal relationship with Noble Pillar Capital. I am not acting on behalf of the company and have not been paid to create or edit the article. May I prepare a completely revised draft in my user sandbox for review? The new draft would be written entirely in Minangkabau, use neutral wording, remove unsupported promotional claims, and include only information supported by verifiable sources. I am not requesting immediate restoration. I am only asking whether a sandbox draft may be prepared and reviewed before any future publication. Thank you. RegulatoryResearch2026 (talk) 21:24, 25 June 2026 (UTC)

No, because that subject isn't notable in any way. //shb (t • c) 02:00, 26 June 2026 (UTC)

Hello SHB2000,

Thank you for your response. I understand that you consider the subject not to have sufficient notability under the currently available sources.

I would nevertheless like to respectfully request a review of the indefinite creation protection on the title “Noble Pillar Capital”.

I am not asking for the deleted article to be restored, and I will not recreate the article in the main namespace unless substantial independent and reliable secondary coverage becomes available and the community has first reviewed the proposed draft.

I understand that repeatedly recreating the page was inappropriate. I confirm that I will not use another account, an alternative title, or another language edition to bypass the protection.

Would you consider either:

1. removing or reducing the creation protection after an appropriate cooling-off period; or

2. explaining the specific conditions under which the protection may be reconsidered in the future?

My purpose is not to bypass the notability requirement. I am only requesting that the protection status be reviewed separately from the question of whether an article should currently exist.

If the protection cannot be changed at this time, I will respect that decision and will not submit another request unless materially new independent sources become available.

Thank you for considering this request.

RegulatoryResearch2026 (talk) 20:37, 29 June 2026 (UTC)